[Poll & Discussion] Best player of last generation

Kobe didn't win 5 rings? And don't go there with the first 3 were Shaq's. The two of them along with several very good role players (Fisher, Horry, Fox, Ron Harper, Horace Grant, Glen Rice) during their 3-Peat made up a team that was a top 5 team all time. Plus, if you watched any of the playoff games during that 3-Peat, you would know that Kobe was the go to guy in crunch time/winning time. Shaq even fouled out in an important game vs the Blazers in their first run in 2000 and Kobe took them home. If they lost that game, they might have lost that series.

If Kobe didn't win, he would have been Vince Carter or Tracy McGrady who also don't carry the same endorsement value either because of it. Again, it's how he won that drew the crowds. Duncan was part of a system, Shaq was a liability on free throws in crunch time, KG only won once even though he was on the original post 80s super-team (and Paul Pierce was the crunch time guy on that team anyway), and Dirk only won once, albeit, never were on teams as good as teams the rest of these guys were on.

There's a reason Kobe has more endorsement value than all of these guys. There's only one stat that counts when you talk player of the generation and that's money and Kobe is overwhelmingly dominant to the rest of these guys in that category.

 

Duncan / Shaq

Garnett
Nowitzki

Kobe

 

One amazing thing about Kobe and Duncan is that between 1999 and 2010, Kobe or Duncan won the championship 9 times between the two of them. 9 times in 12 years. The combination of Kobe and Duncan put up Bill Russell type winning numbers during that decade.

 

I never said Kobe did not win. You said in this post that the only station that matters is money. I disagree with that.

Shaq had the highest peak. Duncan had the longest high peak. Kobe was a great player. But he is clearly less than shaq and Duncan.

 

The reason I point to money as the biggest reason when discussing the player of the generation is that this discussion is about who will be most remembered in this generation. Of course you can point at stats, mvp's, efficiency, etc...but what people remember are the most significant figure and that is the one that is most marketable by default. It's not like Duncan or Shaq got screwed and they had bad managers/agents. They did not receive the sort of endorsement deals Kobe has because they are not as big in the grand scheme of things. Nike would have been more than happy to sign up Shaq or Duncan to a huge deal if they could sell shoes like Kobe can.

As a Lakers fan who spent his high school years during MJ's dynasty, I always wished the Lakers would get a guy like Kobe. And when the Lakers signed Shaq, I was ecstatic. I even was very skeptical that Kobe would ever be the player that his hype demanded. But there were a handful of years where Shaq was not enough to make the Lakers a real contender. They had Nick Van Smack, Eddie Jones (all star SG), Robert Horry, Club Ced, Elden Campbell, Shaq and a young Kobe coming off the bench. This wasn't working for 4 years. But once Phil Jackson took the Lakers coaching job, Kobe started to get it. And it was this moment that thrusted the Lakers from a really good team to a championship dynasty. Kobe became the players I always wanted the Lakers to get (MJ clone) and he jumped ahead of my childhood hero Magic Johnson in an instant. The Lakers actually lost an all star in Eddie Jones which turned out to be addition by subtraction because Kobe got more minutes.

If we are deciding who the most efficient player or best stats player of the generation, then Duncan is definitely the guy. But if we are talking about the player of the generation for people that actually watch the game in person vs in a box score, then Kobe is by far the player of the last two decades and the measure is endorsement value. That said, the fact that Kobe and Duncan won 9 championships in 12 years between 1999 and 2010, we can definitely label the 2000's decade as the Kobe/Duncan era.

 

I think the MLB player comp to Kobe is Derek Jeter. You can spend all sorts of time digging up tons of players who hit more home runs, had a better batting average, had a better glove on the field, had a better on base percentage, etc... But when it comes down to it, in the generation that Jeter played, he was the man. He will be remembered more than anyone else he played with.

 

If Dirk had played with Shaq instead of Kobe, Dirk would have Kobe's rings.

He had to win his title pretty much all by himself.

In today's era of super-teams, you might have a team of Shaq, Dirk, Kobe.

 

Kobe isn't gonna be remembered more than any other player, c'mon dude Tim Duncan and Shaq aren't unknown people. Kobe just has more fans and is more popular, but he's hardly the generational hero you make him out to be most people remember him as poor man's MJ.

The generational heroes are reserved for MJ and LBJ who CLEARLY dominated their own generation. Kobe as a player is far below those two so even if he made more money in endorsements or is more popular with fans its not like they don't know who Tim Duncan and Shaq are, you are just obviously a kobe stan and projecting your fanboyism in the discussion.

Also TD isn't just better at certain aspects than Kobe, he's like STRAIGHT UP BETTER than Kobe in every single aspect. We're talking face smacking domination here any objective observer in the NBA will know this if your goal is to win games than Tim Duncan> Kobe Bryant simple as that.

 

Lots of players could've won the title with Shaq sure Kobe was the closer but it's not like Kobe's the only closer in the NBA, guys like Tmac, Paul Pierce, Dirk, KG even Tim Duncan himself all these guys would've won the same amount of rings or more with Shaq around.

Shaq was the MDA for those 3 years he just needed help closing out games, just watch those games and realize what Kobe was doing could've been done by other superstars with no issues.

 

TD for sure...on the top...and by far. Just for retiring alone without the bell and whistles he should had given extra points ...

 

As Shaq once says, his the MVP, i'm the MDP.

 

The question was best player of the last generation. And I am glad you agree that it is Duncan.

Kobe might be the most popular. But if I had to choose who I would have wanted as a rocket from the beginning of his career it would be Duncan without a doubt.

 

Fair enough, but let me ask you this: Would Duncan have won as much if he didn't play for the Spurs? Did Duncan during the last championships the Spurs won, carry them the way a Shaq and Kobe did during their winning years?

They are all great players. Actually I don't even consider the players mentioned by the OP to be from the same generation but for argument's sake, here is my list:

Kobe (love the guy or hate the guy...he was a special talent)

Duncan (probably the best PF ever)
Shaq



Dirk/KG

 

Shaq is more dominant, but he needed a playmaker that could deliver in the 4th because of his lousy free throws. Injuries and conditioning were other minuses. Shaq's last championship was as credible as Duncan's last.

Kobe understood he needed a dominant big man but wanted to be top dog.

Duncan is the guy you build teams around. He was a good help defender against Shaq, but didn't like to bang down low because it wore him out. 5 championships across 3 decades should elevate him to Kareem status in some circles.

 

TD and KG wouldn't help Shaq as much because he would still need a dominant playmaker to get him the ball so I'm not sure they would have won. I'm not sure Tmac would have won on those teams with Shaq because TMac is Mr. Regular Season. Maybe Pierce and Dirk, but as I've said, the Lakers from 2000-2002 were among the 5 best teams of all time. I think the 2001-2002 Sacramento Kings were actually top 10 all time team as well but never won a championship because they were unlucky that the Kobe/Shaq Lakers were around at the same time. And also, Duncan and the Spurs were there serving as road kill against those Lakers teams between 2000-2002.

I don't think Pierce or Dirk would not have beaten the Kings in 2001-2002 paired with Shaq. Kobe's defense and will to win during the 4th quarter (winning time) was very key in winning those series'. But all of this talk and clear Kobe hate is all speculation. Nobody can prove it one way or another whether any of these other guys would have won paired with Shaq. The fact is that Kobe won those rings with the Lakers and Shaq was going nowhere in the first 4 years on the Lakers before Kobe reached his potential in 2000. Also, if you watch the Kobe Lakers vs the Duncan Spurs head to head in the playoffs, the sniff test would point to Kobe being the more dominant player. Especially in the 2001 playoffs. But keep watching the games in the box scores because that's much more exciting than watching basketball.

And again, Shaq even says that Kobe was the greatest Laker of all time and he would not have succeeded unless he was playing with Kobe. It takes a lot for a guy like Shaq to put his ego away and make a statement like that.

 

Shaq went to the finals with Orlando, Los Angeles, and Miami. In other words, if you pair him with a star wing, you have an instant contender. He didn't need Kobe to be successful.

 

That Orlando team with Penny Hardaway made the finals in the asterisk years when MJ was playing baseball. I don't think they would have beaten the 2001-2002 Sacramento Kings either but I guess we would never know.

In the first 4 years on the Lakers, Shaq wasn't able to make it to the finals with all star shooting guard Eddie Jones and a decent supporting cast. But when Kobe reached his potential, the Lakers were making the Finals rather consistently.

The Miami Heat won with or without Shaq because DWade completely took over the playoffs and finals that year. Shaq clearly one year into decline at that point.

I will say that, if you replaced Shaq with Tim Duncan on the Lakers, Kobe and Duncan would have won at least 5 rings together.

 

Asterisk year? I've always thought it was silly to penalize a team for playing against the opponent in front of them. In any case, Jordan did play. The Bulls lost to the Magic in 6 games.

Shaq won a title in his 4th year with the Lakers...

Shaq was all-nba 1st team that season. It's pretty stupid to assume the Heat would've won w/o him.

 

Shaq and it's not close. He would make any defender today roadkill on his way to the basket.

 

Shaq may have been more dominant during the three year stretch of the Laker title teams. I think Duncan was better for longer, plus he was a better defender. TD gets my vote. And no way should Kobe be ahead of either of them.